Account Planners' Views on How Their Work Is and Should Be Evaluated

Abstract

Account planning in the United States is now part of the mainstream agency landscape. The planning field has evolved from the original British conceptualization of the 1960s and 1970s. Now planners are central to client business strategy development and are also accountable for the outcomes of the agency's products. In light of increased demands by shareholders, holding companies, and market analysts on agencies for accountability, this study examines how the work of account planners in U.S. agencies is currently and should be evaluated. The study reports results of a national survey of U.S. planners regarding these questions. The study found that there are three general factors that planners say are currently being used to evaluate their work: (1) feedback from creatives, clients, and account teams; (2) traditional advertising campaign measures; and (3) awards and press. Of the three, the traditional advertising campaign measures factor accounts for most of the variance in responses. Planners rate the feedback factor as most important, however.Overall, awards and press were not a major consideration in evaluating the work of planners. These finding were consistent when planners were asked how they feel their work <I>should</I> be evaluated: For the most part, it appears that planners feel that the way their work is <I>currently</I> being evaluated is the way it <I>should</I> be evaluated. The study concludes with suggestions for future research.